Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The reasoning behind AAS and then some

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The reasoning behind AAS and then some

    There are several discussions taking place that bring up the reasoning and intent of the AAS game mode. I'll try to describe the purpose of this game mode, to the best of my knowledge, based on discussions with the PR dev team.

    Background
    The original (vanilla) BF2 hit the stores with the conquest game mode. This game mode allows for teams to assault capture points (CPs / flags) in any given order. Each team has to determine which CPs to assault and which to defend.

    Conquest mode also included a bleed (tickets decrease w/o deaths) feature. For double-assault maps, if a team controlled a majority (50%+1) of the CPs on a map then the opposing team would bleed. The intent of these double-assault maps is to bleed out the other team by controlling a majority of the map. For the most part, both teams included a UCB and could not be wiped off of the map.

    There were also single-assault maps that only had bleed if one team controlled all of the CPs. The intent of these maps is for the assaulting team to push the defending team off of the map. Most single-assault maps provided a UCB for the assaulting team and no UCBs for the defending team.

    Issues with vanilla conquest
    Some of these issues are subjective, but I'll lay out what many on the PR team viewed as problems.
    1. Whack-a-mole
      Whack-a-mole is the term used to describe the continuous swapping of flags. Players run from one flag to another to capture them and teams end up chasing each other around the map. Some of the causes of this include a) too many capture points for the number of players, b) teams and players not wanting to play defense, and c) lack of a commander leading to no organization. Even on the most organized servers like Tactical Gamer, whack-a-mole still creeps in.
    2. Squad vs. Squad combat
      Due to the limitations on the maximum number of players coupled with the number of capture points, for the most part conquest mode leads to single squad vs. single squad combat. Other squads are left to defend / attack other CPs or man aircraft. I'll explain further down why the PR team views this as a problem and what they want to see happen.


    Intent of AAS
    Ok, I've laid out some of the background and issues with the original BF2 conquest game mode. Now let's talk about what PR is trying to accomplish.

    Project Reality's vision is to simulate large wars / battles with the objective of wiping the other team off of the map. This is accomplished by focusing the battle around one to (approx) three CPs at any given time. The assumption is that we're fighting along the front-lines where multiple squads will be working together to capture an objective. While there does exist in real life those battles that occur between singular squads, this is not what the mod is trying to simulate.

    Behind Enemy Lines
    With the game mode focusing the battles around fewer CPs, this brings to question of what can / should take place at the CPs that are not able to be captured? Many people will question why a flag cannot be captured if it is left undefended and that this is just a way to appease the public players/servers who do not want to play defense. While this may in part be true, this is not the main reason.

    Beyond focusing the battles around a few CPs, the thought is that these rear CPs have larger (unseen) reinforcements defending them. These reinforcements are being sent forward to the front-lines and as your team neutralizes those forces at the front-lines, those rear flags now have fewer reinforcements... few enough that it would be feasible for your team to assault.

    This doesn't remove all fighting behind enemy lines and the PR team is working to enhance the game mode to provide more objectives for specialty (i.e. spec ops) squads to accomplish. But this does greatly reduce the reasons for a team to be behind enemy lines.

    Now we're still left with several scenarios that I wanted to talk about that all deal with being behind enemy lines.
    1. UCBs
      UCBs exist to provide a constant stream of reinforcements for a team from a position that cannot be assaulted. The map dictates when this scenario occurs and we should follow that storyline. If you need more specifics on what these story-lines would be, I'll be happy to provide some examples.
    2. CPs (non main / non UCB)
      These are flags that will eventually be in contention. These are not the main bases (i.e. spawn for players / assets). These may or may not be the next CPs that can be captured. For the most part, there is little reason for a team to be assaulting these flags. Theoretically there is a large reinforcement contingency in place defending this position. However, there is reason for a team to put squads in place to make a strike at this objective when their teammates have killed and captured the prerequisite objectives.
    3. CPs (main bases)
      When a team does not have a UCB, they still need a main CP that provides the bulk of their units and assets. Again, there is a storyline for this map that has led to a team not having a UCB. In this case, a team can be completely cleared off of the map and their source of reinforcements neutralized. However, the mod is still simulating a large set of reinforcements at these CPs that theoretically cannot be overcome until the reinforcements have been depleted through capturing the prerequisite objectives.


    Neutralizing Supply Lines
    When I say "neutralize supply lines", I'm referring to a team attacking rear CPs (behind enemy lines) and taking out vehicle assets and players. I'm bringing this up because it has been a hot topic (#1) (#2) for some time and it relates to the intent of the PR mod and AAS game mode.

    Neutralize supply lines is a valid real-world tactic. Yes, we are talking about a reality mod. However we do have to take game / map limitations and the intent of the mod into consideration.
    • Spawning simulates the existence of a larger army while conforming to the limitation of a 64p server. The game needs to spawn players and assets at some location. Spawning introduces a lack of situational awareness. Theoretically, in the real world, infantry and assets would be transported in with their situational awareness intact.
    • The PR mod and AAS game mode also consider rear CPs that cannot be captured yet as a fully defended position. While the map has vehicles and infantry spawning at some of these locations, theoretically they would be aware of their surroundings and able to mount a defense.

    If you take those things into consideration, assaults on non-UCB main bases that are not in contention should theoretically not happen. Granted, some of this can be alleviated with a change in the map design, but for the moment we're stuck with them the way they are.

    EDIT:
    I just wanted to add that this post is to talk about the intent of the mod / game mode and not necessarily how we're going to play it here at TG. I'm posting this based on discussions with the PR team, not as a TG admin.

    Conclusion
    The PR mod and AAS game mode are attempting to simulate larger (>64p) battles where the focus is on the front-lines. The PR team is taking incremental steps to enhancing the AAS game mode. Let's look at and understand the intent of the mod / game mode. The current features may not fully support the intent and there may be game / map limitations to deal with.
    Last edited by asch; 03-12-2007, 01:57 PM.
    |TG-12th| asch
    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

    I've got an idea.. No more than 3-5 CPs on any map, no UCBs. This will have the same effect of focusing the battle and eliminate all of the confusion.

    3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

      Added to initial post...
      I just wanted to add that this post is to talk about the intent of the mod / game mode and not necessarily how we're going to play it here at TG. I'm posting this based on discussions with the PR team, not as a TG admin.

      Originally posted by Tempus View Post
      I've got an idea.. No more than 3-5 CPs on any map, no UCBs. This will have the same effect of focusing the battle and eliminate all of the confusion.
      That of course is an option which has pros / cons to it. It removes the need for AAS but it also reduces the number of CPs overall that can be fought over. It's just a matter of perspective and preference, and the PR team chose to have more CPs and progress a battle through them.

      There's still quite a few issues with the current AAS design and with specific maps. Some maps have bottlenecks that rarely can be broken. Some maps we play over and over and always fight over the same two or three CPs... and there could be ten on the map.

      There's also an inherent flaw with the objective of AAS. There isn't incentive for a team to push across the map to wipe the other team out.

      AAS is a work-in-progress.
      |TG-12th| asch
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

        I pulled this quote from another thread because I wanted to address it in terms of the intent of AAS.

        Originally posted by SloppyJoe View Post
        As far as I understand back flags are considered fully defended positions defended by non playing troops. As flags fall those players fill in the spots of invisible defenders. What is confusing to me is that it seems to be an acceptable and valid tactic to have a squad standing by to grab a non cap flag as soon as another squad takes the pre-requisite flag. But the squad at the uncap flag is fighting an invisible non player fully defended position? Uh hmm, I must be missing something.
        This is a good question and I probably didn't make it clear in my original post.

        I consider a squad(s) moving into position for the next objective different than engaging the next objective. So to your point, a squad wouldn't be able to enter the next objective until it is able to be capped. They would have to stay out of the area but that doesn't mean they can't find a good hiding place to strike from a flanking position.

        I don't know if this could be done technically, but let's assume that for any flag that cannot be captured there is the "dome of death" (DoD). This would keep out any assaulting squads. Then when the flag is able to be captured, the DoD is removed. There are probably some cons to that solution. I haven't thought that through.
        |TG-12th| asch
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

          Good post ash, I need to remember more that it's all work in progress.

          I must say I have no idea where the devs are going with the mod at the moment.

          Seems like the mod is in a schizophrenic split, between two game-modes. On one side there are the flags, some with spawns, on the other side you have the rally points.

          I hope they will choose one of two, probably the rally points. I'm thinking the flags may be scrapped from the game all the way, with capturing flags replaced by destroying mapper- placed rally points.

          It must be they are going to do something like that. Currently the flags and the rally points just get in each others way.


          Tarpan, I've always preferred maps with ucb's, especially with air. They simulate the air support coming from far away. What army would let their jets deploy from a base that is about to be overrun by infantry? The us doesn't put their carriers in sight of the coast I they are attacking I think.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

            Originally posted by asch View Post
            There's also an inherent flaw with the objective of AAS. There isn't incentive for a team to push across the map to wipe the other team out.
            Where there are no UCB's, pushing across the map and wiping the OpFor out IS the incentive. I don't see that as a flaw.
            BFCL TF2 league admin

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

              Here are my thoughts, somewhat summed up from what I've said in the other thread.

              1. I don't believe bombing/demolition/assault runs should be made on the rear base (RB, non-UCB) when it is not capturable or not within ~1 flag of being capturable. If for nothing else, for the sake of giving people a chance to move men and vehicles to the real fight.

              2. I don't believe that a flag that is not currently cappable, save for the RB, should be completely immune to assault. Granted, flags that are well away from the current objective shouldn't really be getting attacked, but I think areas within 1-2 flags should be open for assault.

              3. I understand the dev's vision for PR, but I don't totally agree with it and I think that how they're attempting to press it causes more problems than it solves. I think the current direction is very tunnel vision-ish that leads to unfun, 64-player furballs around a single flag.

              4. Bubble of death is good on paper, but in action, is very restrictive. What if I want to move my men through a non-cap area to get them to the rear side of the actual fight? Now they're dead, and I'm left with no option to assault from specified directions the enemy can prepare for.

              5. You should not think you're safe. Ever. Now, I believe it's realistic to expect security from bombing and spawn camping at the RB when the fight is four flags away. However, I think that if you're at all close to the action, you should be ready to protect yourself even if the flag you're at isn't capturable right now. I think it's rather... childish... to expect that I should be allowed to stand like an idiot in the open on a battlefield a block away from the fighting simply because the flag next to me can't be turned.

              Again, PR is great, and I think we're constantly improving through discusions like this. But I do get the sense that, minor things aside, the devs want to dictate how every single battle should be played out. That doesn't sit well with me.
              [squadl]
              "I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

                Originally posted by Root View Post
                Where there are no UCB's, pushing across the map and wiping the OpFor out IS the incentive. I don't see that as a flaw.
                Ok, let me rephrase it. If the objective is to push the other team off of the map, that should be the win condition. As it stands now, a team can win without pushing at all. That is the flaw.

                Originally posted by SmokingTarpan View Post
                <snip>

                3. I understand the dev's vision for PR, but I don't totally agree with it and I think that how they're attempting to press it causes more problems than it solves. I think the current direction is very tunnel vision-ish that leads to unfun, 64-player furballs around a single flag.

                <snip>

                Again, PR is great, and I think we're constantly improving through discussions like this. But I do get the sense that, minor things aside, the devs want to dictate how every single battle should be played out. That doesn't sit well with me.
                The dev's vision is just that... their vision of what they want the mod to be. The implementation of that vision is what they're making incremental steps through, trying different options that may or may not work. In some cases it is causing more issues and it does take feedback to come up with better solutions or simply change what they're trying to accomplish.

                I believe many of the problems we're facing down is brought on more by the map design and less-so by the game mode. Many of the existing maps were not initially created with AASv2 in mind. Some were maps made for conquest and then changed over. Others were designed with AASv1 (true linear) in mind and then modified. Hopefully as they continue to make map and game mode updates, they'll reach their vision of the mod and reduce some of the side-effects we're plagued with.
                |TG-12th| asch
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

                  yea asch is right, alot of the current maps just dont work that well with AAS2 and its not their fault cause AAS2 is very new.

                  Maps that I think DO work well:

                  Qwai River
                  Jabal
                  EJOD Desert
                  Helmand (with less than 30 players)
                  Road to kyongan ni (basically its AAS1 though)


                  Maps that I think have potential to work well but are not quite there:
                  Al Basrah
                  Operation Ghost Train
                  Steel thunder
                  gulf of oman

                  the devs want to dictate how every single battle should be played out. That doesn't sit well with me.
                  Well I read the dev boards everyday and can tell you that is as far from truth as it can get.

                  Theres been some discussion on a new gamemode that would be completely open ended, and to me its very exciting! think along lines of CTI and youll get an idea where this gamemode might go...

                  But to think that dev team is trying to RESTRICT the player??? I just dont understand... PR has given the players far more new freedoms than restrictions. The rallypoint system is just a beginning.

                  Overall I think you got to see where we are going with next few releases to realize that were trying to make the game as open ended and replayable as possible.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

                    @asch:
                    Your input regarding the dev team's intentions when they set up Rear Bases (RBs) in AAS mode was very enlightening. It makes perfect sense to me when considered from that perspective; that rear bases are heavily defended by (unseen) troops, sent forward to reinforce contested flags.

                    However, while this makes sense for ground-based assaults, in the absence of RBs containing AAA or SAM defenses, how would such a design philosophy account for restricted air space over these RBs? How do they rationalize prohibiting air strikes over these areas while confining the heavy hitters like the A10 and such solely to attacking CPs where infantry congregate en masse? The potential for FF incidents, let alone the kind of grief that the A10 could levy against ground personnel, does not appear to have been considered if we are indeed to believe that all conflicts must be settled, in order, at the prerequisite flags before assaulting those in the rear.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

                      With a different point of view and having little to do with attacking rear bases.

                      As I have stated before, both (Conquest and AAS) have very good pros and very bad cons.

                      As asch stated, the pro of AAS is that the 22 players, and the up to nine squad leaders, and one C.O. must work together as a unit way way more so than in Conquest.

                      In Conquest, nearly all full infantry squads were self supporting and logistically sound. This was the best call to make seeing how each squad needed to be both assault and defense. Furthermore, the 7 default kit selections made each kit cabable of going assault or defend depending upon the every changing conditions (whack-a-mole) and needing certain flags to bleed the opponent.


                      The great thing about Conquest is having the freedom to assault anywhere and anytime. This allows cunning and strategy to take positions.
                      Clearly Wake Island without U.A.V. and scanner is the best example of this.
                      The defenders have to spread their assests and warriors out somewhat. Or maybe, just like in soccer when the goalie jumps to one side during a free kick, they give up one portion of the island to better defend another and prevent the Corp from getting into the eastern parts. Again, variables, luck, and strategy play in, just in real life.

                      _____

                      Now about AA

                      What AAS does great is create a battlefield where squads and players doing SPECIFC things WORKING together is the best call.

                      Example: The Heavy A.T. kit is a specific role in the platoon. No sniping with guided rounds, no five rounds. Just two super explosive rounds, a pistol, a knife, and a frag. Clearly a support kit, not an anti-personnel kit; and one that should be coveted by the platoon leader.

                      However, many players have not adapted to AAS in this regard. Many squads fall to communicate with each other and hook up. IMO, two squads built differently but working together are better than two squads with the identical kit layouts working away from each other.



                      Now to the worst thing about AAS. As in most things, the same thing that gives us life also kills us. Meaning, do to the fact that the battles are more concentrated, and the battlefields so small, AND that each side knows what the other must do in a specific order, the OPTIONS the assaulting CO has is 100% predictable to stop bleed or to get a foot hold in the enemy position.

                      As fuzzhead pointed out, some maps really show this and are not for AAS. IMO, M. city is the best example. I refuse to play this map because of the order the USMC CO needs to abide with.
                      Assaults are supposed to be surprising. What made Operation Overlord in 1944 so grand was that it took the enemy by surprise (relatively speaking, it was a huge operation).
                      However, what we have now is a USMC force restricted in where they can attack the enemy WHEN THEY HAVE AIR TRANSPORT.
                      Indeed, even a guerilla insurgent battlefield, as found in Al Basharh is restricting to the Marine Commander. Never mind going into the enemies back door and conducting a surprising assault, got to hit facility first to get a foot hold in the city.

                      Another bad part about AAS is that a “false positive” is found in many of the battles. Ideally, both sides are equal and trying to assault. In these conditions some good skirmishes should unfold.
                      However, there are many times where one side is clearly the weaker team, but still wins. Hence a “false positive”.
                      Here is how it works.
                      The team that assaults and fails to push the enemy back to the bleed point will take more casualties and see no return in their investment if they do not get to the bleed point. Mao Valley is really bad for this. The side I was on was trying to assault but got pushed back really hard, meanwhile the assault was costly and no advantage was given to the team who did it. We won by 60 tickets or less, but we really got are arse kicked. “False Positive.”
                      (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member
                      (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader
                      (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander

                      Squad Member pledge to their SL:
                      Squad Leader pledge to their team:
                      Commander pledge to their SL:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

                        I believe the best compromise is to take the two great aspects of each game mode in incorporate them.

                        The first way in dong this is to give respect to both game modes, and not label Conquest as regressive, or “vanilla” or “retarded”.

                        The second thing is to set-up a battlefield where one team actually defends and one side actually assaults. I never have seen this done yet in Battlefield. Well except Wake Island scrim. TG’s bleed system in Karkand did this well. The scrim with Unkown Soilder on Operation Clean Sweep was 100% defense also. Well, Hills of Ham is designed for this, but sadly, when GB breaks through they do not have the option to charge the bunkers.
                        O.k, so I have seen this on before, but it is uncommon.

                        I believe the answerer to this is to make the types of maps where there is a clear defender and a clear assaulter; both with advantages and disadvantages.

                        To combat whack-a-mole and to better create the gameplay of “make believe”defender at CP :
                        A. Allow the Assaulting team not worry about re-tacking certain flags once they secure them.
                        B. Increase the number to capture a position. Seven warriors are needed at least for every flag.

                        C. Allow the defenders to have their vehicles spawn closer to the front lines. Makes since seeing how they have already established a main and have support coming thourgh unihibited. Plus this helps their handicap of not being able to recapture lost flags.
                        Meaning, instead of the big vehicles spawning at the rear base, they spawn for the defenders. This represents that they are being transported there by REMFs.

                        __

                        I’ll use Operation Clean Sweep as an Example that is a hybrid of Conquest and AAS:

                        Pro for the USMC Commander:

                        1. Can assault any position. Element of surprise is his. Greatly improves their chance of getting on to the island.

                        2. Can hop to various flags and assault any CP once done so. Allows them to be elusive.

                        3. Once they capture a position, the make believe defenders are there to protect it. Meaning, the enemy will not be able to re-take it.

                        Con for the USMC commander:

                        1. No vehicles spawn at the flags they take. All big vehicles will need to come from the UCB main base. Supply drops are very important here. No transport choppers/tanks/APCs/ jeeps will spawn on the island.

                        2. Will need to concentrate his forces to capture a CP. Here seven warriors are needed to capture any flag on the map. This will force the Corp to concentrate his/her forces.
                        Pretty much, the Corp commander has a large infantry element fighting over any flag they want. Without good transport choppers and platoon cohesion, the element can be surrounded and chopped up by the enemy.

                        3. Will not have any actual spawn points on the Island. APCs, SLs, Rally Points, and Commander Rally points will be the only way to spawn in on the island.
                        This will prevent the defenders from assaulting the CP. Nothing spawns there, so once you lose it, it is best to better focus on the CP you have left. As the MECs lose CPs their defense will get better and better as more warriors are now avaliable.

                        Pro for the MEC Commander:

                        1. Each CP has a fair amount of vehicles spawning in there. Typically, armour, APCs. He will have the hardware to defend the island, and repulse the Corp. Typically, gunships will have maybe two locations tops.

                        2. Does not need to worry about only one or two jarheads capturing his/her CPs. Can very well have a fire team, defend each flag. They merely need to take down a couple of jarheads to prevent the enemy from getting the flag, and request back up. (here, a super awesome battle will begin. Clearly, the Corp is committed to assaulting this rejoin of the Island chain… or have they, maybe it is a trick, to take warriors off other flags.

                        3. Con for the MEC Commaner: Totally has no clue as to where the Corp will assault from. Will need to make like the soccer goalie and force the kicker to bite to the portion of the net he/her is fixing to jump across. Meaning, have less defenders on not as tactically sound flags, forcing the Corp to set up shop in an area where he/she would prefer.

                        Note: if you’re a fire-team defending a CP and you see two Seahawks coming to you, might want to tell your SL. Pretty sure the Mariens have selected their Assault coordinates. After that, shoot them up and retard their assault.

                        Who is winning the battlefield?

                        Like in TG Conquest bleed on Defensive maps, the defenders who hold the most ground will have the tactical advantage, thus bleed the enemy. However, the assaulters would need to do a little extra work to start bleeding the enemy, take one more flag after 50/50, seeing how they have a UCB and all.
                        The longer the MECs can prevent the Corp from taking CPs, the more advantage they have.

                        Just an idea. Seems fun to me.

                        Gives big pros and cons to both the Assaulting and Defening force. Currently we are seeing the "Defenders" assault like no other on .509.

                        Special note: Maps like E.J.O.D., Q. River and other double assault maps will stay the same. This set-up only works for a map where one team as a UCB and one side is the assaulting force and the other is the defense.
                        Last edited by Rick_the_new_guy; 03-13-2007, 09:57 AM.
                        (PO3) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Member
                        (CPO) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Squad Leader
                        (LCDR) Marcinko_R. (BF2 PR .509) Commander

                        Squad Member pledge to their SL:
                        Squad Leader pledge to their team:
                        Commander pledge to their SL:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

                          Originally posted by Braidedheadman View Post
                          @asch:
                          Your input regarding the dev team's intentions when they set up Rear Bases (RBs) in AAS mode was very enlightening. It makes perfect sense to me when considered from that perspective; that rear bases are heavily defended by (unseen) troops, sent forward to reinforce contested flags.

                          However, while this makes sense for ground-based assaults, in the absence of RBs containing AAA or SAM defenses, how would such a design philosophy account for restricted air space over these RBs? How do they rationalize prohibiting air strikes over these areas while confining the heavy hitters like the A10 and such solely to attacking CPs where infantry congregate en masse? The potential for FF incidents, let alone the kind of grief that the A10 could levy against ground personnel, does not appear to have been considered if we are indeed to believe that all conflicts must be settled, in order, at the prerequisite flags before assaulting those in the rear.
                          Good question. I haven't addresses this specifically with anyone on the dev team so I don't have a good answer. So instead I'll offer you up asch's perspective... which is, of course, twice as good. :row__642:

                          Note: I want to reiterate that so far my comments in this thread have been to provide insight into what the PR dev team has been thinking.... and in this post to add my own personal view.

                          Even with (unseen) troops defending a rear main-base, I could see the capabilities of aerial assaults. Without actual military experience my assumption is that these typically would happen before the ground assault. A case could be made that the map is designed w/o AAA or SAM defenses on purpose or we could assume they exist. Tough call.

                          For this situation, I fall back to some of the limitations imposed by the game (or by poor map design). Vehicles and players spawn at these rear flags. It is highly possible that one team's aircraft could dominate that one CP on it's own, neutralizing any ground or air vehicles. Much of this has to do with the spawn mechanism. If timed correctly, there is little chance. It's also of little challenge to that pilot in the air.

                          Personally I would like to see that battles take place on the battlefield (or in the skies) and not at main-bases that cannot be captured (yet) AND provide spawning vehicles.

                          Now that doesn't mean that battles have to take place only at CPs that can be captured. Battles should take place away from these as well at choke points, open fields, open skies, etc. If the main base is not being aerial assaulted and the opposing team is able to utilize their vehicle assets, there will be plenty to do for the assaulting aircraft. Hopefully those battles will offer a richer experience than taking down vehicles that have just spawned in.
                          |TG-12th| asch
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The reasoning behind AAS and then some

                            Good post asch. Best part was the conclusion...

                            "If you take those things into consideration, assaults on non-UCB main bases that are not in contention should theoretically not happen. Granted, some of this can be alleviated with a change in the map design, but for the moment we're stuck with them the way they are."

                            Amen, brother!

                            Even this not being a rule, it is good to hear it from an admin.

                            Cheers!
                            |TG-69th|Kevlar



                            "Oh I know I don't think I see what I see what I'm thinking."

                            Comment

                            Connect

                            Collapse

                            TeamSpeak 3 Server

                            Collapse

                            Advertisement

                            Collapse

                            Twitter Feed

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X